Heaman v. E. N. Rowell Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtSears, P. J.
The action is for damages for wrongful discharge of the plaintiff from the employment of the defendant. The question involved is whether the plaintiff’s employment by the defendant was at will or for life. The order appealed from denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as failing to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. We are thus called upon to determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show (at least prima facie) that plaintiff was entitled to employment by the defendant throughout his life.
The allegations of the complaint, so…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pierce v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Carnig v. CarrMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Pennsylvania Co. v. DolanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
- Arentz v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Rape v. Mobile & O. R. R.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ohio Table Pad Co. of Indiana, Inc. v. HoganIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Collins v. Parsons CollegeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
- Hill v. Westchester Aeronautical Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Cary v. US Hoffman MacHinery CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1957
- Eckhart v. Plastic Film CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.